|
The Debt Time Bomb
|
|
Topic Started: Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM (749 Views)
|
|
RJD
|
Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Summary ● The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ● Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ● According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ● However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases. ● If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future to hit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions.
The Debt Time Bomb
The Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments.
Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 29 2014, 11:52 AM
Post #2
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
As a 'Debt Denier', one that believes all talk of debt is more contrived than real, it becomes awkward for me to debate the issue on the same terms as (say) the OBR or the government do.
To remind - all these supposed debts have 'creditors', and it is these we never hear mention of.
Why is of course entirely political. It is this supposed burden of debt that allows for austerity measures to introduced and the public to be convinced to accept it.
The deficit could be eliminated overnight and without any serious damaging consequences to UK output, economic performance. It would of course involve raising more of the taxes that are avoided etc ........ and restoring credibility to the corporate tax system that has become a joke.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 29 2014, 11:59 AM
Post #3
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
All debt has to be paid off in one form or another. One persons debt and inability to pay it, leads to another persons bankruptcy. One way is by uncontrolled inflation, to the point of wheeling our money around in barrows and the complete erosion of savings and incomes. The lefts view of life is always short term, with the longer term concequences ignored.
"The price of tram rides and beef, theater tickets and school, newspapers and haircuts, sugar and bacon, is going up every week," Xammar wrote in February 1923. "As a result no one knows how long their money will last, and people are living in constant fear, thinking of nothing but eating and drinking, buying and selling. There is only one topic on everyone's lips in Berlin: the dollar, the mark, and prices. ... Have you seen this? For heaven's sake, stop! I've just bought a six-week supply of sausages, ham, and cheese."
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:09 PM
Post #4
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Affa: As a 'Debt Denier', one that believes all talk of debt is more contrived than real, it becomes awkward for me to debate the issue on the same terms as (say) the OBR or the government do. To remind - all these supposed debts have 'creditors', and it is these we never hear mention of.
You may not of heard who they are. You may not of bothered yourself to find out who they are. But who they actually are is well understood and reported on continuously and is all over the public domain. It is a very strange logic that claims that if you are not aware of something then it does not exist.
Affa: Why is of course entirely political. It is this supposed burden of debt that allows for austerity measures to introduced and the public to be convinced to accept it.
Yes you are in total denial and I doubt that you are capable of ever seeing the elephant in the room.
Affa: The deficit could be eliminated overnight and without any serious damaging consequences to UK output, economic performance. It would of course involve raising more of the taxes that are avoided etc ........ and restoring credibility to the corporate tax system that has become a joke.
I see not one line of arithmetic. Clearly if you hold such a view you must have done some research and weighed up the situation in detail, so please present your calculations here for review in order to test plausibility. Firstly you need to understand the meaning of the word "avoid" and determine whether you are not confusing this with "defraud". Secondly you need to write down exactly the quanta that you believe is obtainable from such sources and over what period of time. Thirdly if you think you are able to ramp up corporation taxes with impunity then you are deluded. Failure to support your claims with some evidence means that your diatribe is only fit for the garbage bin. So please put up your numbers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:12 PM
Post #5
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
I don't see the government's ministers behaving cautiously, having austerity alter their style - nor those in Whitehall. There is no crisis ........ but these mentioned do not want it known.
How do you convince a man that he is starving? Take away his food. In order to convince the electorate that the Nation is poor, they make the voter poor ....... and the rich just get richer. 'that's the way it's done'.
The UK is a wealthy nation. Money is available for everything, including wars ....... it's not available for public services because there is no desire to make it so.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:17 PM
Post #6
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:09 PM
So please put up your numbers.
Well here is a number for you RJD, it has just been stated at PMQs during a question to David Cameron that the tax gap is £119.3 billion, David Cameron did not challenge that figure. (PMQs is repeated on BBC Parliament late tonight and is also available on I-player.)
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:20 PM
Post #7
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:09 PM
Affa: As a 'Debt Denier', one that believes all talk of debt is more contrived than real, it becomes awkward for me to debate the issue on the same terms as (say) the OBR or the government do. To remind - all these supposed debts have 'creditors', and it is these we never hear mention of.
You may not of heard who they are. You may not of bothered yourself to find out who they are. But who they actually are is well understood and reported on continuously and is all over the public domain. It is a very strange logic that claims that if you are not aware of something then it does not exist.
Affa: Why is of course entirely political. It is this supposed burden of debt that allows for austerity measures to introduced and the public to be convinced to accept it.
Yes you are in total denial and I doubt that you are capable of ever seeing the elephant in the room.
Affa: The deficit could be eliminated overnight and without any serious damaging consequences to UK output, economic performance. It would of course involve raising more of the taxes that are avoided etc ........ and restoring credibility to the corporate tax system that has become a joke.
I see not one line of arithmetic. Clearly if you hold such a view you must have done some research and weighed up the situation in detail, so please present your calculations here for review in order to test plausibility. Firstly you need to understand the meaning of the word "avoid" and determine whether you are not confusing this with "defraud". Secondly you need to write down exactly the quanta that you believe is obtainable from such sources and over what period of time. Thirdly if you think you are able to ramp up corporation taxes with impunity then you are deluded. Failure to support your claims with some evidence means that your diatribe is only fit for the garbage bin. So please put up your numbers.
Nothing you state is evidenced at all. All I state is accurate ........ unless it is you in denial that the debts do have creditors?
In four years the treasury has struggled to raise the revenue it desperately needs ..... that is the gist also of this OBR report. Yet you do not question whether the Chancellor has done enough to correct that by other means than austerity ...... his options are boundless, his performance risible.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:36 PM
Post #8
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 29 2014, 12:12 PM
I don't see the government's ministers behaving cautiously, having austerity alter their style - nor those in Whitehall. There is no crisis ........ but these mentioned do not want it known.
How do you convince a man that he is starving? Take away his food. In order to convince the electorate that the Nation is poor, they make the voter poor ....... and the rich just get richer. 'that's the way it's done'.
The UK is a wealthy nation. Money is available for everything, including wars ....... it's not available for public services because there is no desire to make it so.
You are a self proclaimed Debt denier and beyond hope of any future recovery, therefore, I will not waste any further time on you with this matter.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:38 PM
Post #9
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 29 2014, 12:17 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:09 PM
So please put up your numbers.
Well here is a number for you RJD, it has just been stated at PMQs during a question to David Cameron that the tax gap is £119.3 billion, David Cameron did not challenge that figure. (PMQs is repeated on BBC Parliament late tonight and is also available on I-player.) Break down the headline numbers. Name the source and then it it might be, just might be mind, worth using some of my limited time with. Best you do the homework.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:39 PM
Post #10
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
I need to also add a "so what". So tell us how you are going to reduce it, details mind.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 29 2014, 12:46 PM
Post #11
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:38 PM
Break down the headline numbers. Name the source and then it it might be, just might be mind, worth using some of my limited time with. Best you do the homework. RJD, it was not me who asked Cameron the question. It was the fact that Cameron did not challenge the figure is the interesting bit.
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Oct 29 2014, 01:14 PM
Post #12
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 29 2014, 12:12 PM
I don't see the government's ministers behaving cautiously, having austerity alter their style - nor those in Whitehall. There is no crisis ........ but these mentioned do not want it known.
How do you convince a man that he is starving? Take away his food. In order to convince the electorate that the Nation is poor, they make the voter poor ....... and the rich just get richer. 'that's the way it's done'.
The UK is a wealthy nation. Money is available for everything, including wars ....... it's not available for public services because there is no desire to make it so.
Probably because, in the grand scheme of things, public services are not that important.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
Post #13
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim. It seems that voting Tory was counter productive to that aim.
I'm sure you are right about big cuts needed in public sector spending and both Labour and Conservatives recognise that. But IMO that will only be acceptable if the rich in society increase their financial contribution towards recovery.
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
Post #14
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim.
It seems that voting Tory was counter productive to that aim. I'm sure you are right about big cuts needed in public sector spending and both Labour and Conservatives recognise that. But IMO that will only be acceptable if the rich in society increase their financial contribution towards recovery. Whats a rich person?
Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 01:53 PM
Post #15
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim.
It seems that voting Tory was counter productive to that aim. I'm sure you are right about big cuts needed in public sector spending and both Labour and Conservatives recognise that. But IMO that will only be acceptable if the rich in society increase their financial contribution towards recovery.
Whats a rich person? Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house? The cut off level would need to be decided.
As for the value of the house perhaps the government could in some way use the same sort of thinking they used when they introduced the bedroom tax?
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Oct 29 2014, 02:12 PM
Post #16
|
|
Deleted User
|
Only someone wholly out of touch with economic reality would suggest that Britain does not have a continuing debt crisis. The public sector debt is currently at £1.355 billion representing 77.3% of GDP. In 2014 alone it will have increased in the region of £99 billion this being the 2014 deficit, although the Coalition have reduced the deficit from a peak of £153 billion in 2009.
The interest payment on this public sector debt is currently £52.1 billion per annum or 3% of GDP. Even if the next government were able to reduce the deficit to zero by 2019/20 the continued borrowing in the interim will increase out interest payment to around £73 billion in 2019/20.
If this isn't a crisis we would need to redefine the word crisis!
Now as Affa rightly points out if there is a debt, then there have to be creditors. He states that the establishment don't talk about creditors who, by his implication, are an amorphous group of the very wealthy and therefore the real power behind government.
Of course whatever government is in power money speaks, irrespective of whether it is the owner or the steward of that money. The reality is that the vast majority of British public debt is held in government bonds also known as gilts. Gilts are one of the most widely held asset classes in Britain. They are not, as I infer from Affa's coy innuendo, the exclusive property of those awful greedy bankers, which those on the left rejoice in pillorying nor even of giant corporations. There are probably more individual holders of gilts (UKpublic sector debt) than there are of any other asset class. They are the backbone of many public sector pension funds, private company and individual pension schemes and individual savers. Of course many domestic and foreign banks also hold gilts as do foreign governments. But once purchased the creditor effectively loses any control over the debt, as we saw with the corrupt abuse of government bonds by for instance the Greek government in 2009/10/11.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
Post #17
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim.
It seems that voting Tory was counter productive to that aim. I'm sure you are right about big cuts needed in public sector spending and both Labour and Conservatives recognise that. But IMO that will only be acceptable if the rich in society increase their financial contribution towards recovery.
Whats a rich person? Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house? Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 29 2014, 03:09 PM
Post #18
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:36 PM
You are a self proclaimed Debt denier and beyond hope of any future recovery, therefore, I will not waste any further time on you with this matter.
You will do as you see fit, and so will I. And I will respond to false assertions whenever it occurs to me do so, including yours.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 29 2014, 03:18 PM
Post #19
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Major Sinic
- Oct 29 2014, 02:12 PM
If this isn't a crisis we would need to redefine the word crisis!
Now as Affa rightly points out if there is a debt, then there have to be creditors. He states that the establishment don't talk about creditors who, by his implication, are an amorphous group of the very wealthy and therefore the real power behind government.
You are more astute today, it is welcomed.
The crisis (debt) was created, and not by excessive government spending or borrowing. It is a crisis because the remedies to prevent it becoming a crisis have not been resorted to. And by the way the £52bn annual interest repayment just keeps getting bigger ...
Where do these £bns end up? Under someone's mattress presumably because Osborne has been spectacular in somehow not persuading the Banks to lend (invest) in SME's or much else other than housing mortgages. Those £bns that the government do part with could be ploughed back into the economy, investment in jobs, growth, deficit reduction. imo there should be an indictment, prosecutions, but it will not happen because the whole idea has been to usher in austerity for the working class. and btw I exclude no political party from this ........ the BNP probably would be blameless.
Edited by Affa, Oct 29 2014, 03:36 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 29 2014, 04:36 PM
Post #20
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 29 2014, 12:46 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:38 PM
Break down the headline numbers. Name the source and then it it might be, just might be mind, worth using some of my limited time with. Best you do the homework.
RJD, it was not me who asked Cameron the question. It was the fact that Cameron did not challenge the figure is the interesting bit. Gives it no more credibility that when you were called a dimwit on here and did not challenge it
You know full well the tax gap is £34B including tax avoidance
And that also includes those that pay cash only and don't ask for a receipt
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Oct 29 2014, 04:55 PM
Post #21
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim.
It seems that voting Tory was counter productive to that aim. I'm sure you are right about big cuts needed in public sector spending and both Labour and Conservatives recognise that. But IMO that will only be acceptable if the rich in society increase their financial contribution towards recovery.
Whats a rich person? Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house?
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on. Yes, that's why I asked what a rich person was.
If its someone who earns over £1m pa then its going to be hard graft getting much extra tax out of them because there's only 20,000 of them.
If its measured on the value of property (as many measures of wealth seem to include property) then a lot of people are going to be made bankrupt by such things as mansion taxes. Which means a lot of property will be put up for sale so people can pay their bills which means the value of the properties fall, which means they are no longer wealthy, which means they are no longer liable for tax bills.
What I am trying to say is that much of the wealth that some people think exists, only exists by virtue of someone attaching a value to it. Its implied wealth, not real.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 05:34 PM
Post #22
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim.
It seems that voting Tory was counter productive to that aim. I'm sure you are right about big cuts needed in public sector spending and both Labour and Conservatives recognise that. But IMO that will only be acceptable if the rich in society increase their financial contribution towards recovery.
Whats a rich person? Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house?
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on. That doesn't mean that those near the top of the financial pile shouldn't feel a little discommoded. After all in terms of high income I suspect such are taken by those who benefit most when the economy is good.
It might mean one less holiday a year, or drinking wine at £200 pounds per bottle instead of £400 and such like. Hardly an economic catastrophe.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 29 2014, 05:50 PM
Post #23
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 04:36 PM
Gives it no more credibility that when you were called a dimwit on here and did not challenge it
Calling people names is against the rules of this forum. That HMRC figure is a fairy story from back when a lax person was the senior civil servant at HMRC. That Cameron did not challenge the £100 billion plus figure today is significant.
10 minutes 30 second in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mv3p8/prime-ministers-questions-29102014
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:07 PM
Post #24
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Affa
- Oct 29 2014, 03:18 PM
- Major Sinic
- Oct 29 2014, 02:12 PM
If this isn't a crisis we would need to redefine the word crisis!
Now as Affa rightly points out if there is a debt, then there have to be creditors. He states that the establishment don't talk about creditors who, by his implication, are an amorphous group of the very wealthy and therefore the real power behind government.
You are more astute today, it is welcomed. The crisis (debt) was created, and not by excessive government spending or borrowing. It is a crisis because the remedies to prevent it becoming a crisis have not been resorted to. And by the way the £52bn annual interest repayment just keeps getting bigger ... Where do these £bns end up? Under someone's mattress presumably because Osborne has been spectacular in somehow not persuading the Banks to lend (invest) in SME's or much else other than housing mortgages. Those £bns that the government do part with could be ploughed back into the economy, investment in jobs, growth, deficit reduction. imo there should be an indictment, prosecutions, but it will not happen because the whole idea has been to usher in austerity for the working class. and btw I exclude no political party from this ........ the BNP probably would be blameless. Unfortunately you are no less patronising which is not to be welcomed
The crisis was, as we all know, created by 'banking Kings in the Altogether' believing that they could make profits from collective investment instruments they didn't understand resulting in a partial collapse of the banking system It was in the opinion of many, although not you of course, exacerbated in this country by a government which had been profligate in a period of high tax receipts by continuing to borrow excessively and which had effectively transformed lightwight financial regulation into strawweight financial regulation. Thus the negative impact on the British economy was greater than it need or should have been. The Coalition, again in the opinion of many, although again certainly not you, were half hearted in their austerity measures ( they have virtually complied with what Labour proposed!!) thus delaying the economic recovery and with it extending the misery of recession.
The £52 billion interest bill, which I noted at the very least will have increased to £73 billion by 2019/20, is unlikely to be under someone's mattress and more likely to be providing pensions for those who have retired and savings growth such as it is on peoples savings. Banks were condemned for the lackadaisical and laissez fair lending policies prior to 2007. As a result of much tightened international banking viability regulations (Basel III) many banks have had to increase their reserves; some have failed most have achieved the minimum requirements. These coupled with a more responsible and cautious lending criteria is I believe the reason that banks have not been so circumspect in their lending policies to SMEs. I am no apologist for the banking trade but they really are between the devil and a hard place.
What billions are you referring to? The billions the government part with, whether taxes or borrowings, are spent on health, housing, law and order, defence, transport, education and of course interest on their borrowings. There isn't anything left over as an entirely forgettable outgoing Secretary to the Treasurey observed about four and a half years ago. Equally it may have passed you by or perhaps, like many to the left of centre, you will point blank refuse to accept that we have the fastest recovering economy in the G7 with more people in work than ever before. Countries like France which has chosen to largely maintain public expenditure and attempt to finance it through draconian taxes has, as we all know, assumed Britains mantle of several decades ago; the Sick Man of Europe! with increasing unemployment, lower tax receipts and an exodus of the very people it needs to create the recovery through investment, invention and entrepreneurship.
I'm not sure who you want to indict, charge and prosecute, although I have an idea.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:24 PM
Post #25
|
|
Deleted User
|
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 05:34 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can
Whats a rich person? Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house?
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on.
That doesn't mean that those near the top of the financial pile shouldn't feel a little discommoded. After all in terms of high income I suspect such are taken by those who benefit most when the economy is good. It might mean one less holiday a year, or drinking wine at £200 pounds per bottle instead of £400 and such like. Hardly an economic catastrophe. Just who are you talking about? At what point is someone near the top of the financial pile? I know of no one on a little over £100,000 per annum and paying a marginal rate of tax exceeding 60% who would dream of spending £200 on a bottle of wine let alone £400. In my experience those who have earned their money treat it with far more respect than those who have it given to them.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:25 PM
Post #26
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 29 2014, 05:50 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 04:36 PM
Gives it no more credibility that when you were called a dimwit on here and did not challenge it
Calling people names is against the rules of this forum. That HMRC figure is a fairy story from back when a lax person was the senior civil servant at HMRC. That Cameron did not challenge the £100 billion plus figure today is significant. 10 minutes 30 second in. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mv3p8/prime-ministers-questions-29102014 Well thanks for the detail link but the point remains that not responding to every point in a long involved question does not in any way validate any part of it. So while Kelvin Hopkins did say that about the tax gap his question really was about the level of HMRC staff.
My example is a fair one, there are literally thousands of points made here that you have not countered but could be shown to have been on line when they were made. Doesn't make them any more true.
But thanks for your clear clarification that you will never quote government figures again as you say they are false.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:34 PM
Post #27
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Major Sinic
- Oct 29 2014, 06:24 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 05:34 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on.
That doesn't mean that those near the top of the financial pile shouldn't feel a little discommoded. After all in terms of high income I suspect such are taken by those who benefit most when the economy is good. It might mean one less holiday a year, or drinking wine at £200 pounds per bottle instead of £400 and such like. Hardly an economic catastrophe.
Just who are you talking about? At what point is someone near the top of the financial pile? I know of no one on a little over £100,000 per annum and paying a marginal rate of tax exceeding 60% who would dream of spending £200 on a bottle of wine let alone £400. In my experience those who have earned their money treat it with far more respect than those who have it given to them. I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:38 PM
Post #28
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 06:25 PM
Well thanks for the detail link but the point remains that not responding to every point in a long involved question does not in any way validate any part of it. Given Cameron is leader of the tax evaders party, if he could have challenged that figure he would have done. Data is challenged often in the chamber of the House Of Commons.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:39 PM
Post #29
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:34 PM
I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare.
Well I'll defend anyone from attack by false instrument and criticise anyone that seeks to gain by use of false instrument.
Would you care to give some examples of what you were referring to?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:41 PM
Post #30
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 29 2014, 06:38 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 06:25 PM
Well thanks for the detail link but the point remains that not responding to every point in a long involved question does not in any way validate any part of it.
Given Cameron is leader of the tax evaders party, if he could have challenged that figure he would have done. Data is challenged often in the chamber of the House Of Commons. That's so flawed in what passes for its logic it's not worth responding to
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:48 PM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 06:41 PM
That's so flawed in what passes for its logic it's not worth responding to There is nothing flawed about it.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 06:55 PM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 06:39 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:34 PM
I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare.
Well I'll defend anyone from attack by false instrument and criticise anyone that seeks to gain by use of false instrument. Would you care to give some examples of what you were referring to? I did think it was obvious. The rich people who received a tax cut from this government? Even if common sense suggests the level at which it cuts in needs to be a little higher. That's what I mean about it would need to be assessed.
I am troubled a little by the Mansion Tax in the way it has been suggested. I'm even more troubled by the actual imposition of the bedroom tax.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 29 2014, 07:10 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:55 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 06:39 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:34 PM
I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare.
Well I'll defend anyone from attack by false instrument and criticise anyone that seeks to gain by use of false instrument. Would you care to give some examples of what you were referring to?
I did think it was obvious. The rich people who received a tax cut from this government? Even if common sense suggests the level at which it cuts in needs to be a little higher. That's what I mean about it would need to be assessed. I am troubled a little by the Mansion Tax in the way it has been suggested. I'm even more troubled by the actual imposition of the bedroom tax. Well none of that is an example of what you were alleging had been happening and the implication was it was by posts here.
Ah well
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 07:45 PM
Post #34
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 07:10 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:55 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 06:39 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:34 PM
I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare.
Well I'll defend anyone from attack by false instrument and criticise anyone that seeks to gain by use of false instrument. Would you care to give some examples of what you were referring to?
I did think it was obvious. The rich people who received a tax cut from this government? Even if common sense suggests the level at which it cuts in needs to be a little higher. That's what I mean about it would need to be assessed. I am troubled a little by the Mansion Tax in the way it has been suggested. I'm even more troubled by the actual imposition of the bedroom tax.
Well none of that is an example of what you were alleging had been happening and the implication was it was by posts here. Ah well I think we must have come to a misunderstanding somewhere along the way.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 29 2014, 08:13 PM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
For those interested £400 pounds for a bottle of wine is the most expensive I have heard of from an individual who claimed he spent that while on holiday. Don't know if it's true or not but the idea of the rich having a little less to spend not being the end of the world for them, was my point which still stands.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 29 2014, 08:29 PM
Post #36
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 11:13 AM
Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can do, creating and relying on future growing income streams is the stuff of smoke filled pipes. Banking public sector and NHS future productivity gains is Fool's Gold. If you really believe that we should not consume today at the cost of future generations then you must support massive Public Sector spending cuts now and sustained well into the future. There is also one thing for sure and that voting Labour would be counter production to that aim. Plenty of cliches again, so I suppose we need to go after the poor again and big nanny?
How about this instead, let deflation solve the problem! Can we really afford a fully insured City and banking sector? How about removing all those props that support comically high house prices and protect asset owners in a society that has real term falling wages and at best stagnating productivity? Did it ever occur to you that Britain's working population can no longer afford unlimited support for the 5%?
Of course not!
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 29 2014, 08:31 PM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 07:45 PM
I think we must have come to a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. Quite possibly
I was asking for examples of your "I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare."
As for your £400 bottle of wine point don't you think that might have been the man bites dog example that gets repeated far more than the humdrum reality. My limited experience of the stonking rich is they can be very parsimonious. One I recall would have holes in his shirts darned rather than throw them away.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 29 2014, 08:38 PM
Post #38
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 04:55 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 01:33 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can
Whats a rich person? Is that someone who earns a lot or someone who has a high value house?
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on.
Yes, that's why I asked what a rich person was. If its someone who earns over £1m pa then its going to be hard graft getting much extra tax out of them because there's only 20,000 of them. If its measured on the value of property (as many measures of wealth seem to include property) then a lot of people are going to be made bankrupt by such things as mansion taxes. Which means a lot of property will be put up for sale so people can pay their bills which means the value of the properties fall, which means they are no longer wealthy, which means they are no longer liable for tax bills. What I am trying to say is that much of the wealth that some people think exists, only exists by virtue of someone attaching a value to it. Its implied wealth, not real. We cannot afford the levels of rent seeking currently acting like a millstone round the neck of the UK economy, whether that is the lazy landlord sucking up his tenants meagre pay rises or banks ripping off businesses with small print or sharp practice to City spivs helping themselves to public money or the hard earned cash of ordinary workers and acting as little more than privatised taxation.
Sort out the top end of society Attlee style and watch the UK flourish.
Don't be distracted by cute puppies!
|
|
|
| |
|
Cymru
|
Oct 30 2014, 01:58 AM
Post #39
|
- Posts:
- 3,504
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 29 2014, 12:09 PM
You may not of heard who they are. You may not of bothered yourself to find out who they are. But who they actually are is well understood and reported on continuously and is all over the public domain. It is a very strange logic that claims that if you are not aware of something then it does not exist. Could you list some examples?
I am very interested in knowing just who it is we owe so much money to.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 30 2014, 07:22 AM
Post #40
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Cymru
- Oct 30 2014, 01:58 AM
I am very interested in knowing just who it is we owe so much money to.
I would like to know that as well, other than the massive of amount of American sub-prime mortgage debt British banks lumbered themselves with.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|